ArticleBMC research notes2011
Knowledge of ghostwriting and financial conflicts-of-interest reduces the perceived credibility of biomedical research.
Article in BMC research notes, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Disclosing conflicts of interest in patient decision aids.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013Pooled it
- Effect of revealing authors' conflicts of interests in peer review: randomized controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Trial
- Knowledge of undisclosed corporate authorship ("ghostwriting") reduces the perceived credibility of antidepressant research: a randomized vignette study with experienced nurses.BMC research notes · 2012Trial
- Conflicts of interest and Scientific Societies.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2020Review
- Conflicts of interest among authors of medical guidelines: an analysis of guidelines produced by German specialist societies.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2012Article
- A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures.The New England journal of medicine · 2012Article
- Legal remedies for medical ghostwriting: imposing fraud liability on guest authors of ghostwritten articles.PLoS medicine · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile the impact of conflicts-of-interest (COI) is of increasing concern in academic medicine, there is little research on the reaction of practicing clinicians to the disclosure of such conflicts. We developed two research vignettes presenting a fictional antidepressant medication study, one in which the principal investigator had no COI and another in which there were multiple COI disclosed. We confirmed the face validity of the COI vignette through consultation with experts. Hospital-based clinicians were randomly assigned to read one of these two vignettes and then administered a credibility scale.
findingsPerceived credibility ratings were much lower in the COI group, with a difference of 11.00 points (31.42%) on the credibility scale total as calculated through the Mann-Whitney U test (95% CI = 6.99 - 15.00, p < .001). Clinicians in the COI group were also less likely to recommend the antidepressant medication discussed in the vignette (Odds Ratio = 0.163, 95% CI = .03 = 0.875).
conclusionsIn this study, increased disclosure of COI resulted in lower credibility ratings.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.